Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

So something cannot be a fact unless we can prove it first? And, if we cannot prove it then science is not interested in exploring it? Well, if that is so then why is science trying to defy gravity with harmonics. Is there proof that that can be accomplished in order to get them interested in it?

Brian, I am trying my best to explain to you what science is and how it works without it seeming like I"m calling you stupid. Work with me here.

As, I've said, science does not prove things, it explains them. Now let's use the most famous science in history to demonstrate what I just said.

Newton saw apples fall to the ground. That was the observation that began the science. That was establishing the fact that needed explanation. At that point, does Newton need to prove to you the fact that apples fall to the ground IS a fact? Of course not, don't be silly. Why does he need not do that?

BECAUSE THE FACT THAT APPLES FALL TO THE GROUND IS SELF EVIDENT.

Then, Newton got curious. Without that, no one would have ever heard of him! So, then Newton tried to explain HOW gravity worked.

See?

Another example, when man first made bronze, we had no idea how or why it worked, only that it did. Later, we performed science! We tried to explain it. Why? Because then when the processes were understood, we could make other types of alloys too! Do we know everything about metalurgy now? Doubtful. Has science still provided us with useful data that helped mankind? Yes, in spades.

Science is trying to defy gravity with harmonics because we know enough about each PROCESS that we might now begin to explore some permutations on a theme just like we did with alloys. It doesn't really have much with "proving" anything as it is taking processes we now understand better and then saying... how about this or why not that? In other words, study revealed the process, which we then took for a ride so to speak.

This is not self evident. Even so, if you want a study on radar, that's as much as you will get out of a study on radar returns. If you want to know about the objects, then we must have the objects for study.

You are misusing the term "hearsay". It is a legal term defined as: “Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town," as opposed to "I saw Tom in town," which is direct evidence.” Source - Wikipedia.

*Sigh*. The English language is rife with words that can mean different things in different contexts. Why do you think words have more than one dictionary definition?

noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

Source - dictionary.com

"Ridiculous" is your term. Science investigates and wastes their time studying a lot of things. But this one time they cannot spend the time or money. Bull.

Just because science has standards does not mean its infallible. Just like any human endeavor, mistakes can be made. Again, that's the PRECISE REASON for the scientific method; to try to avoid the human traps... such as a certain researcher who would prefer a certain result to be true. That's why we have peer review. Again, standards standards standards. Without them the hucksters can fool us all. That does not make science infallible by any means.

My point was simply that there is nothing self evident here with regards to UFOs for science to study. Not even the UFOs themselves!

Their assertion is not that aliens inhabit UFO’s. It is that something is flying in our skies that we, nor science, understands.

Lol, ok, but far from what we've been hearing in this topic.

You make it seem that science will take on anything that they can get their hands on. Not so. They get their funding largely from grants…money that can get cut off if they do not fall into lock-step with the norms of science. UFO's are taboo to them. They avoid it like the plague, not because there is nothing to study, but because of ridicule and funding.

Bring me something self evident to study. You haven't a thing but radar blips. Again, fine... if you want a study on radar blips!

There are ruins all around the world they cannot explain. They throw out ridiculous claims that they were built with hammers and chisels to obtain fatnesses that exceed glass of our time and we accept it. Why. Because a scientist says it is so. Not to mention lifting huge stones without the benefit of wood in the area.

There's lots of things that science can't explain. Does that mean that Pyramids are no longer self-evident because of it? Does it mean that prior to Newton and Einstien explaining how gravity worked that it didn't exist? Just because a self evident fact may exist doesn't mean that we'll explain it well or at all. But it does mean we can at least try. Without a self evident fact, we can't even do that, leaving God and UFOs by the wayside.

Of course, you could always develop a way to capture these objects for study. You'd be rich!

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

Brian, I am trying my best to explain to you what science is and how it works without it seeming like I"m calling you stupid. Work with me here.

As, I've said, science does not prove things, it explains them. Now let's use the most famous science in history to demonstrate what I just said.

Newton saw apples fall to the ground. That was the observation that began the science. That was establishing the fact that needed explanation. At that point, does Newton need to prove to you the fact that apples fall to the ground IS a fact? Of course not, don't be silly. Why does he need not do that?

BECAUSE THE FACT THAT APPLES FALL TO THE GROUND IS SELF EVIDENT.

Then, Newton got curious. Without that, no one would have ever heard of him! So, then Newton tried to explain HOW gravity worked.

See?

Another example, when man first made bronze, we had no idea how or why it worked, only that it did. Later, we performed science! We tried to explain it. Why? Because then when the processes were understood, we could make other types of alloys too! Do we know everything about metalurgy now? Doubtful. Has science still provided us with useful data that helped mankind? Yes, in spades.

Science is trying to defy gravity with harmonics because we know enough about each PROCESS that we might now begin to explore some permutations on a theme just like we did with alloys. It doesn't really have much with "proving" anything as it is taking processes we now understand better and then saying... how about this or why not that? In other words, study revealed the process, which we then took for a ride so to speak.

This is not self evident. Even so, if you want a study on radar, that's as much as you will get out of a study on radar returns. If you want to know about the objects, then we must have the objects for study.

*Sigh*. The English language is rife with words that can mean different things in different contexts. Why do you think words have more than one dictionary definition?

noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

Source - dictionary.com

Just because science has standards does not mean its infallible. Just like any human endeavor, mistakes can be made. Again, that's the PRECISE REASON for the scientific method; to try to avoid the human traps... such as a certain researcher who would prefer a certain result to be true. That's why we have peer review. Again, standards standards standards. Without them the hucksters can fool us all. That does not make science infallible by any means.

My point was simply that there is nothing self evident here with regards to UFOs for science to study. Not even the UFOs themselves!

Lol, ok, but far from what we've been hearing in this topic.

Bring me something self evident to study. You haven't a thing but radar blips. Again, fine... if you want a study on radar blips!

There's lots of things that science can't explain. Does that mean that Pyramids are no longer self-evident because of it? Does it mean that prior to Newton and Einstien explaining how gravity worked that it didn't exist? Just because a self evident fact may exist doesn't mean that we'll explain it well or at all. But it does mean we can at least try. Without a self evident fact, we can't even do that, leaving God and UFOs by the wayside.

Of course, you could always develop a way to capture these objects for study. You'd be rich!

Thanks for the well written response. I have to run now but will respond later.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2008) — The Aztecs, Mayans and ancient Egyptians were three very different civilizations with one very large similarity: pyramids. However, of these three ancient cultures, the Egyptians set the standard for what most people recognize as classic pyramid design: massive monuments with a square base and four smooth-sided triangular sides, rising to a point. The Aztecs and Mayans built their pyramids with tiered steps and a flat top.

The ancient Egyptians probably chose that distinctive form for their pharaohs' tombs because of their solar religion, explained Donald Redford, professor of Classics and ancient Mediterranean studies at Penn State. The Egyptian sun god Ra, considered the father of all pharaohs, was said to have created himself from a pyramid-shaped mound of earth before creating all other gods. The pyramid's shape is thought to have symbolized the sun's rays.

According to Redford, "The Egyptians began using the pyramid form shortly after 2700 B.C., and the great heyday of constructing them for royalty extended for about a thousand years, until about 1700 B.C." The first pyramid was built by King Djoser during Egypt's Third Dynasty. His architect, Imohtep, created a step pyramid by stacking six mastabas, rectangular buildings of the sort in which earlier kings had been buried. The largest and most well-known pyramids in Egypt are the Pyramids at Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Giza designed for Pharaoh Khufu.

For centuries, people have theorized how the great pyramids were built. Some have suggested that they must have been constructed by extraterrestrials, while others believe the Egyptians possessed a technology that has been lost through the ages.

But the process of building pyramids, while complicated, was not as colossal an undertaking as many of us believe, Redford says. Estimates suggest that between 20,000 and 30,000 laborers were needed to build the Great Pyramid at Giza in less than 23 years. By comparison, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris took almost 200 years to complete.

According to Redford, pharaohs traditionally began building their pyramids as soon as they took the throne. The pharaoh would first establish a committee composed of an overseer of construction, a chief engineer and an architect. The pyramids were usually placed on the western side of the Nile because the pharaoh's soul was meant to join with the sun disc during its descent before continuing with the sun in its eternal round. Added Redford, the two deciding factors when choosing a building site were its orientation to the western horizon where the sun set and the proximity to Memphis, the central city of ancient Egypt.

The cores of the pyramids were often composed of local limestone, said Redford. Finer quality limestone composed the outer layer of the pyramids, giving them a white sheen that could be seen from miles away. The capstone was usually made of granite, basalt, or another very hard stone and could be plated with gold, silver or electrum, an alloy of gold and silver, and would also be highly reflective in the bright sun.

Said Redford, the image most people have of slaves being forced to build the pyramids against their will is incorrect. "The concept of slavery is a very complicated problem in ancient Egypt," he noted, "because the legal aspects of indentured servitude and slavery were very complicated." The peasants who worked on the pyramids were given tax breaks and were taken to 'pyramid cities' where they were given shelter, food and clothing, he noted.

According to Redford, ancient Egyptian quarrying methods -- the processes for cutting and removing stone -- are still being studied. Scholars have found evidence that copper chisels were using for quarrying sandstone and limestone, for example, but harder stones such as granite and diorite would have required stronger materials, said Redford. Dolerite, a hard, black igneous rock, was used in the quarries of Aswan to remove granite.

During excavation, massive dolerite "pounders" were used to pulverize the stone around the edge of the granite block that needed to be extracted. According to Redford, 60 to 70 men would pound out the stone. At the bottom, they rammed wooden pegs into slots they had cut, and filled the slots with water. The pegs would expand, splitting the stone, and the block was then slid down onto a waiting boat.

Teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. Said Redford, a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lubricating the slipway as the pulling went on."

Once the stones were at the construction site, ramps were built to get them into place on the pyramid, said Redford. These ramps were made of mud brick and coated with chips of plaster to harden the surface. "If they consistently raised the ramp course by course as the teams dragged their blocks up, they could have gotten them into place fairly easily," he noted. At least one such ramp still exists, he said.

When answering to skepticism about how such heavy stones could have been moved without machinery, Redford says, "I usually show the skeptic a picture of 20 of my workers at an archaeological dig site pulling up a two-and-a-half ton granite block." He added, "I know it's possible because I was on the ropes too."

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

Brian, I am trying my best to explain to you what science is and how it works without it seeming like I"m calling you stupid. Work with me here.

As, I've said, science does not prove things, it explains them. Now let's use the most famous science in history to demonstrate what I just said.

Newton saw apples fall to the ground. That was the observation that began the science. That was establishing the fact that needed explanation. At that point, does Newton need to prove to you the fact that apples fall to the ground IS a fact? Of course not, don't be silly. Why does he need not do that?

BECAUSE THE FACT THAT APPLES FALL TO THE GROUND IS SELF EVIDENT.

Then, Newton got curious. Without that, no one would have ever heard of him! So, then Newton tried to explain HOW gravity worked.

See?

Another example, when man first made bronze, we had no idea how or why it worked, only that it did. Later, we performed science! We tried to explain it. Why? Because then when the processes were understood, we could make other types of alloys too! Do we know everything about metalurgy now? Doubtful. Has science still provided us with useful data that helped mankind? Yes, in spades.

Science is trying to defy gravity with harmonics because we know enough about each PROCESS that we might now begin to explore some permutations on a theme just like we did with alloys. It doesn't really have much with "proving" anything as it is taking processes we now understand better and then saying... how about this or why not that? In other words, study revealed the process, which we then took for a ride so to speak.

This is not self evident. Even so, if you want a study on radar, that's as much as you will get out of a study on radar returns. If you want to know about the objects, then we must have the objects for study.

*Sigh*. The English language is rife with words that can mean different things in different contexts. Why do you think words have more than one dictionary definition?

noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

Source - dictionary.com

Just because science has standards does not mean its infallible. Just like any human endeavor, mistakes can be made. Again, that's the PRECISE REASON for the scientific method; to try to avoid the human traps... such as a certain researcher who would prefer a certain result to be true. That's why we have peer review. Again, standards standards standards. Without them the hucksters can fool us all. That does not make science infallible by any means.

My point was simply that there is nothing self evident here with regards to UFOs for science to study. Not even the UFOs themselves!

Lol, ok, but far from what we've been hearing in this topic.

Bring me something self evident to study. You haven't a thing but radar blips. Again, fine... if you want a study on radar blips!

There's lots of things that science can't explain. Does that mean that Pyramids are no longer self-evident because of it? Does it mean that prior to Newton and Einstien explaining how gravity worked that it didn't exist? Just because a self evident fact may exist doesn't mean that we'll explain it well or at all. But it does mean we can at least try. Without a self evident fact, we can't even do that, leaving God and UFOs by the wayside.

Of course, you could always develop a way to capture these objects for study. You'd be rich!

My problem with science commenting on the probability of the existence of UFO’s is they use the assumption that if science cannot get their hands on UFO artifacts to study in a lab then we should assume no man on earth has ever touched such an material. And, that no man has touched such an artifact because no artifacts have ever existed.

Those are two very big assumptions made from people that say they make no assumptions or statements of probability about anything without hard concrete evidence.

It is a fact our government has the ability to confiscate anything they claim borders on national security and absolutely stonewall the public afterwards. They have that power. Roswell is the best known case for this but there are hundreds of others cases just like it. They have retrieved artifacts from crash sites (alien or terrestrial) but we know our place when it comes to demanding they hand it over to science to study. We wouldn’t waist our time or look so stupid demanding such a thing, so they get to keep it.

Some will say Roswell was Project Mogul but three of the base’s top personnel who were familiar with Mogul say otherwise. There are many other witnesses, 600 if you include second hand witnesses, that have conflicting testimony to the Govt’s story.

What I find amusing is that science will poo-poo eyewitness testimony but if any of them say witnessed a person getting abducted, thrown in the back of a van, and they were the only witness to that crime, they would sing like a canary to the authorities. They would suddenly place a great deal of value on what they saw. They would be the last to claim “well I am only an eyewitness…and that means nothing.”

I am not saying eyewitness testimony should solve the UFO phenomenon to the standards of science. I’m saying it is not worthless on the sliding scale of probability as science suggests.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2008) — The Aztecs, Mayans and ancient Egyptians were three very different civilizations with one very large similarity: pyramids. However, of these three ancient cultures, the Egyptians set the standard for what most people recognize as classic pyramid design: massive monuments with a square base and four smooth-sided triangular sides, rising to a point. The Aztecs and Mayans built their pyramids with tiered steps and a flat top.

The ancient Egyptians probably chose that distinctive form for their pharaohs' tombs because of their solar religion, explained Donald Redford, professor of Classics and ancient Mediterranean studies at Penn State. The Egyptian sun god Ra, considered the father of all pharaohs, was said to have created himself from a pyramid-shaped mound of earth before creating all other gods. The pyramid's shape is thought to have symbolized the sun's rays.

According to Redford, "The Egyptians began using the pyramid form shortly after 2700 B.C., and the great heyday of constructing them for royalty extended for about a thousand years, until about 1700 B.C." The first pyramid was built by King Djoser during Egypt's Third Dynasty. His architect, Imohtep, created a step pyramid by stacking six mastabas, rectangular buildings of the sort in which earlier kings had been buried. The largest and most well-known pyramids in Egypt are the Pyramids at Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Giza designed for Pharaoh Khufu.

For centuries, people have theorized how the great pyramids were built. Some have suggested that they must have been constructed by extraterrestrials, while others believe the Egyptians possessed a technology that has been lost through the ages.

But the process of building pyramids, while complicated, was not as colossal an undertaking as many of us believe, Redford says. Estimates suggest that between 20,000 and 30,000 laborers were needed to build the Great Pyramid at Giza in less than 23 years. By comparison, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris took almost 200 years to complete.

According to Redford, pharaohs traditionally began building their pyramids as soon as they took the throne. The pharaoh would first establish a committee composed of an overseer of construction, a chief engineer and an architect. The pyramids were usually placed on the western side of the Nile because the pharaoh's soul was meant to join with the sun disc during its descent before continuing with the sun in its eternal round. Added Redford, the two deciding factors when choosing a building site were its orientation to the western horizon where the sun set and the proximity to Memphis, the central city of ancient Egypt.

The cores of the pyramids were often composed of local limestone, said Redford. Finer quality limestone composed the outer layer of the pyramids, giving them a white sheen that could be seen from miles away. The capstone was usually made of granite, basalt, or another very hard stone and could be plated with gold, silver or electrum, an alloy of gold and silver, and would also be highly reflective in the bright sun.

Said Redford, the image most people have of slaves being forced to build the pyramids against their will is incorrect. "The concept of slavery is a very complicated problem in ancient Egypt," he noted, "because the legal aspects of indentured servitude and slavery were very complicated." The peasants who worked on the pyramids were given tax breaks and were taken to 'pyramid cities' where they were given shelter, food and clothing, he noted.

According to Redford, ancient Egyptian quarrying methods -- the processes for cutting and removing stone -- are still being studied. Scholars have found evidence that copper chisels were using for quarrying sandstone and limestone, for example, but harder stones such as granite and diorite would have required stronger materials, said Redford. Dolerite, a hard, black igneous rock, was used in the quarries of Aswan to remove granite.

During excavation, massive dolerite "pounders" were used to pulverize the stone around the edge of the granite block that needed to be extracted. According to Redford, 60 to 70 men would pound out the stone. At the bottom, they rammed wooden pegs into slots they had cut, and filled the slots with water. The pegs would expand, splitting the stone, and the block was then slid down onto a waiting boat.

Teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. Said Redford, a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lubricating the slipway as the pulling went on."

Once the stones were at the construction site, ramps were built to get them into place on the pyramid, said Redford. These ramps were made of mud brick and coated with chips of plaster to harden the surface. "If they consistently raised the ramp course by course as the teams dragged their blocks up, they could have gotten them into place fairly easily," he noted. At least one such ramp still exists, he said.

When answering to skepticism about how such heavy stones could have been moved without machinery, Redford says, "I usually show the skeptic a picture of 20 of my workers at an archaeological dig site pulling up a two-and-a-half ton granite block." He added, "I know it's possible because I was on the ropes too."

Try finding an explanation for Puma Punku. It dwarfs the Great Pyramid. Not in size, but in accomplishment.

What is also very interesting about scientists making comments about UFO’s is that they tend to look down their noses at our court system. That our court system will allow first hand witness testimony to sway their conclusions while science considers that rubbish. But when it comes to them speculating about any advanced race in the universe being able to exceed the speed of light, utilize wormholes, or access different dimensions, they are the first to speculate that that is impossible for them. But in a courtroom you cannot enter into testimony what a witness did not say, facts that were not known or speculative testimony. So which is the superior process?

Science is a business and institution that wants to remain on top of the most admired list. They like to laugh at the possibility of UFO’s, out of body experiences, ghosts and God because they cannot get their hands on it. But some things are out of our reach for the time being. They should show a little humility in that regard. But humility does little for their desire to remain on top of the most admired list. Arrogance usually keeps you up there.

Along the same lines: How would a giraffe prove that humans exist if they wanted to use the scientific method? They cannot catch us on film. They cannot capture us. They have evidence of roads but no proof we made them. They can see us but have no other way of proving we exist.

The UFO phenomenon is very similar until we get more evidence to show the world. That is if our Govt doesn’t confiscate that evidence first like they have in the past.

My problem with science commenting on the probability of the existence of UFO’s is they use the assumption that if science cannot get their hands on UFO artifacts to study in a lab then we should assume no man on earth has ever touched such an material. And, that no man has touched such an artifact because no artifacts have ever existed.

Those are two very big assumptions made from people that say they make no assumptions or statements of probability about anything without hard concrete evidence.

It is a fact our government has the ability to confiscate anything they claim borders on national security and absolutely stonewall the public afterwards. They have that power. Roswell is the best known case for this but there are hundreds of others cases just like it. They have retrieved artifacts from crash sites (alien or terrestrial) but we know our place when it comes to demanding they hand it over to science to study. We wouldn’t waist our time or look so stupid demanding such a thing, so they get to keep it.

Some will say Roswell was Project Mogul but three of the base’s top personnel who were familiar with Mogul say otherwise. There are many other witnesses, 600 if you include second hand witnesses, that have conflicting testimony to the Govt’s story.

What I find amusing is that science will poo-poo eyewitness testimony but if any of them say witnessed a person getting abducted, thrown in the back of a van, and they were the only witness to that crime, they would sing like a canary to the authorities. They would suddenly place a great deal of value on what they saw. They would be the last to claim “well I am only an eyewitness…and that means nothing.”

I am not saying eyewitness testimony should solve the UFO phenomenon to the standards of science. I’m saying it is not worthless on the sliding scale of probability as science suggests.

Eyewitness testimony is not self evident. Science is not a court of law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not how science works. The only comments I see from scientists pretty much reflect the fact that there is nothing to study. Errr, not thier fault.

At the end of the day, the fact that all you are left with is conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

The only comments I see from scientists pretty much reflect the fact that there is nothing to study

At the end of the day, the fact that all you are left with is conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

Science does not stop with their statement that “there is nothing to study.” They lead people to conclude there is nothing to study because there is nothing to the subject but mass hallucinations and misidentifications on a grand scale. Of course they will not come out and say that, but that is what they infer. Furthermore, you use the term “conspiracy theory” because you know that word has a tone of ridiculousness to it (as in “conspiracy nut”). Again, leading to a conclusion that has no facts to support it.

A good debater/presenter will keep his statements short and guide the listener to a conclusion that they did not outright say. It is the key to being an effective lawyer/politician. I could just as easily suppose that the scientific community does not possess hard evidence of UFO’s because they do not have the power to stand up to our govt. and demand to see it, which is more factual than the claim that our govt. would not conspire against us.

We are all ripe to be swayed by people that we admire. It is not above science to capitalize on this same, cheap tactic. Michael Shermer is a prime example of this.

After following this post, I watched a UFO invesitgation on the History channel I think. They went to Mexico were there are thousands of sightings of UFOs (not necessarily aliens). Very interesting. One guy has taken over 500 different photos. Now, to be honest, that seems a little fishy to me.

Overall, it did appear there were UFOs flying around Mexico. What were they? Heck if I know. Couldn't tell you if they were from this world or not. No proof either way.

After following this post, I watched a UFO invesitgation on the History channel I think. They went to Mexico were there are thousands of sightings of UFOs (not necessarily aliens). Very interesting. One guy has taken over 500 different photos. Now, to be honest, that seems a little fishy to me.

Overall, it did appear there were UFOs flying around Mexico. What were they? Heck if I know. Couldn't tell you if they were from this world or not. No proof either way.

The Mutual UFO Network, “MUFON”, went to Mexico to investigate three different top sightings in the area. They debunked all three. But that doesn’t stop some shows from continuing to spin these sightings.

BTW – MUFON is the largest UFO investigative body in the world and has over 200 scientists in their organization.

The Mutual UFO Network, “MUFON”, went to Mexico to investigate three different top sightings in the area. They debunked all three. But that doesn’t stop some shows from continuing to spin these sightings.

BTW – MUFON is the largest UFO investigative body in the world and has over 200 scientists in their organization.